 Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, friends, this session deals with heritage management with museums and the challenges of archeologically outreach in the 21st century. It is about public funding and other forms of financing archeological sites, conservation works, and research. Conservation, preservation, and maintenance of sites is always quite expensive. Excavation itself is expensive research as well, but the ongoing costs for an archeological park or a small museum, and its maintenance are often higher. In some countries, with a lot of tourism, archeology is an important issue, and somehow part of the country's identity. In Austria, this is not the case, I would say. And at times where financing is getting narrower, it is becoming more and more difficult to justify those expenses. To attract more and more people to get visitors to sites and museums is thus important. Because of this, archeological parks and reconstructions of prehistoric enrollment buildings are booming somehow. And I show some examples from Austria, from Kanunzum, Willowabander, where several reconstructions have been built in the last, actually in the last 20 years, but in the last 10 years, quite a lot. Examples from Austria, from southern Austria, here from Hungary, from the Temple of Isis. Sometimes these reconstructions are somehow connected to experimental archeology. For example, the Roman keeping system in the bath, in Kanunzum, and from the scientific point of view, a lot of debates are quite challenging. Of course, it would be very interesting to discuss these reconstructions in the light of the Venice Trout as well. Anyhow, marketing aspects become more and more important. Archeology is seen as an adventure, it's a slogan that is used in this respect. And studies show that really a lot of people are interested in archeology, and many people would like to gain an insight into archeology. This is just another example from southern Austria, from Syria, where I'm from. My colleague, or I'm called, made an inquiry to the extent how many people are really interested in archeology in Austria. You see here how many people would like to participate. 18% would like very much, and 40% would like to participate somehow in archeology. And how many people are interested, 8%, highly interested, 18%, or even interested, and 34%, also interested. So there are also companies that try to make money out of this interest. They offer one-week participation at an excavation, or one weekend. This is called 30 Weekends for volunteers, people who are interested in archeology, and who always wanted to take part at an excavation. I showed you just the website from the Gwent in Great Britain, but also in Austria there's one. Non-profit association, Archeology. And actually, we have quite good experiences with this kind of voluntary work. Participants pay not little money to work as a volunteer at the excavation. The problem that results on this emphasis on adventure and on the attempt to attract more and more visitors is that marketing aspects become more important, whereas scientific findings and research fall behind. This is the danger, of course. So it has been observed that there is a kind of change of the museum as educational institution to a place of entertainment, something quite problematic here. Of course, it is a danger that could lead to a staged world that ensignate the elitist when lacking the authenticity. The question. So my paper is primarily about the situation in Austria, how things changed and how things could change. Are there paradigmatic changes in Austria's heritage management? That's the question. First, just about the term paradigmatic change, is a term that was used by Thomas Kuhn, philosopher of science, who studied the scientific process and how knowledge is gained. A paradigmatic change is, as he said, when one explanatory model or one theory is replaced by another better theory. This is a scientific revolution in his words. He said, speaking mainly about natural sciences, of course. What happened in Austria? The important or the interesting thing is that two important international charters were ratified just two years ago or three years ago. In the meantime, the Balletta Convention, very important step, the European Convention on the Protection of Ecological Heritage. Very important convention at the Article V, in my opinion, is one of the most important things it says it's important to rise public awareness and accessibility to archaeological sites, as well as to publish results of archaeological excavations and prospections. And the importance of integrated protection of archaeological heritage was a very important point in the Article V. And together, so it was just ratified two years ago in Austria. And together with this convention is another important convention, the Faro Convention, the Council of Europe Framework Convention of the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. In the article 11, it says, in the management of the cultural heritage, the parties undertake to encourage non-governmental organizations concerned with heritage conservation to act in the public interest. So two very important conventions were ratified just three years ago. The question is, what will happen? Actually, I have to say, several requirements of the Balletta Charter and the Faro Charter had already been implemented, I would say, some of them. One, paradigmatic change in heritage management that took place already quite some time ago, some maybe will say it hasn't happened enough, was the realization that public awareness is quite important for the protection of sites. And in order to raise public awareness, it is possible to communicate and to tell the public why the protection of monuments is important, even if there is nothing to see, because the monument is still under the earth. In this respect, the publication of all sites that are under protection in a GIS GIS system that is open to the public, open access, absolutely, was a small revolution. It happened first in the German-speaking area in 2007 and several years later in Austria too. And in the meantime, in all the federal states of Austria, such GIS systems are public. The older protected sites, the listed monuments, are there in its open access. Problem is, of course, that just maybe 10% of all the monuments are protected and just the protected sites are here inside this GIS system. But the other problem is that not in all federal states, it's implemented in the same way. But it was a small revolution because before, there were a lot of people that said that this would be like an instruction book for POTS diggers and for illegal excavations. But fortunately, the opinion prevailed that it is necessary to tell the public which sites are under protection. It's also so important in Austria because building authorities at the municipal level, and they need to know about the sites. One difficulty in Austria is the structure, the federal structure. There's the state who is responsible for conservation and protection of sites. And as its federal heritage authority, the Bundes-Dankmar Amt, then there are the federal states like Stereo, Austria, where I am from that also have some important competencies and also their own laws, for example, about the protection of buildings in historic city centers. And the regional planning isn't their competence. Land use planning is one of the very important points in the Valetta Convention. And then there are the municipalities, cities and villages that have a very important competence. They have the building authority. The building authority, of course, is one of the most important actors in this respect. Financing of archaeology and heritage management in Austria is also fragmented in between these different players, I would say. And heritage sites around primarily by municipalities and federal states, which often causes a kind of dilemma because municipalities and federal states have primarily a focus on touristic needs. They want reconstructions, for example, whereas the authority, the state, always is concerned with the protection itself, the physical protection of the monument, and mainly sees the problem that these touristic aspects causes a harm to the original substance. So there are ongoing conflicts between these two parties, I would say. As I said before, the publication of protected sites in geese systems and several other changes had happened even 10 years ago before the ratification of the Valletta Charter. So this ratification, until now, didn't cause paradigmatic changes. Some other important changes had taken place about 10 years ago, the liberalization or establishment of an archaeological market. Just 10 years ago, heritage authority accepted finally that rescue excavations have to be done primarily by private companies, NGOs, non-profit associations. So it was a liberalization or establishment of an archaeological market, establishment of a commercial archaeological sector. In the meantime, 95% of excavations are done by museums, NGOs, non-profit associations. Around, I think it were about 760 excavations in the last year or so, quite a lot. And since this liberalization, the heritage authority itself acts primarily as authority but doesn't excavate itself anymore. It gives permits for the excavations. It functions primarily to control superwires. If excavations are done in accordance to the guidelines for the archaeological excavation. So it publishes the guidelines. Here are the guidelines for the archaeological. Excavations. So excavations are done primarily by companies, non-profit associations, small museums and NGOs whereas research institutes and university also conduct research excavations. The promotion of public awareness which is in my opinion also very important is has to be done primarily on a regional level. So by institutions that are somehow close to the citizens and in close contact are the municipal museums at non-profit organization. Citizen science is often used term in this respect and the possibility of participation in cultural process, a central claim of far-off convention, the inclusion of civil society. And of course, there has a lot to be done still in Austria. Something else that's new in Austria, it's the assessment of the Engriffseheblichkeit that has to be done. It's a new invention just two years ago. I think it's a kind of assessment of the relevance of intervention of after logic excavation is the extent to which the gain of knowledge that is expected by excavation prevail over this destruction that happens during excavation because of course it's just for research excavations for invasive methods. Disconnected with another paradigm in the German speaking world that has criticized a lot of times and observed by my colleague Raymond Karl that the protection of monuments has absolutely priority compared to the research. So the problem is when protection ends in itself if monuments are protected because there are monuments and not because there are source for historical research. But the paradigm can be explained by the fact that excavation always causes some destruction effect that was emphasized already in the Charter of Lausanne where article five say must be an overriding principle that the gathering of information about the archeological heritage should not destroy any more archeological evidence than is necessary. And this assessment of the Engriffseheblichkeit mentioned is somehow this scientific evolution of the significance of the site that is mentioned here in the Charter of Lausanne. A crucial claim in the Valletta Convention was integrated conservation of archeological heritage. There's the integration of archeological considerations in development plans and development policy. This claim had also been part in the Charter of Lausanne where article two says policies for the protection of archeological heritage should constitute an integral component of policies relating to land use, development, and planning as well as of cultural, environmental, and educational policies. In Austria such development plans, land use plans are called Flächenwiedmungspläne. They are the most important tool for the building authority on the municipal level because this is something on the municipal level of villages. And in this plan, the areas that are under protection are recorded as well as the area that are seen as archeological reserves. So it's also something that's mentioned in the Valletta Charter that all these protected areas like here two examples, protected areas are listed here in these development plans and as well the archeological reserves. The problem again is that in nine different federal and state different systems, so we have nine different systems how these areas are recorded. The structural problem is again that the federal structure of Austria it needs much better connection between the building authority on the municipal level and the heritage management that means between municipalities and the state. And concerning the participation of the public as central came of the fire convention, the state has to provide resources that make it possible for volunteers to really take part in heritage management. I think there's a need of archeologists whose job is just to work with regional correspondence or on a regional level. The interesting thing is that the ratification of two charters Valletta and fire was just two years ago. Several paradigmatic changes had happened already 10 years ago, but there's still lots to be done. Thank you for your attention.